Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Washington – President Donald Trump’s decision to Order strikes in Iran – among the most consecutive he has made as commander -in -chief – is The latest example of an American president taking military measures without first requesting the approval of the congress. And experts say that, although his power on the American armed forces is not absolute, there are probably small legislators.
Trump is supposed to submit to the congress a legal justification for having bombed the Iranian nuclear installations within 48 hours of the start of the operation. Unlike the tangible consequences with which Trump was faced with other measures in which he tested the limits of executive power – such as court decisions against him – any price he could pay for this decision would take place in the American political arena and on the world scene, where the American reputation is at stake.
“Over the past 25 years, the presidents have certainly extended the limits of the presidential authority to resort to force,” News John Bellinger told NBC News. “Using the strength more and more, the deployment of the army increasingly, without the authority of the congress – and the congress, with some persistent objectors, simply acquiesced to this.”
The limits of the presidential power to use the military force are stated in the sections of the American Constitution, the resolution of the war powers of 1973 and the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 1 of the Constitution clearly indicates: Congress – and no other part of the federal government – has the power to declare war. But it is something that the congress has not officially done for over 80 years, since the Second World War.
While the congress approved what is called the authorizations of the military force and the appropriate funds to help in the current conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war was reduced, partly by its own actions, while the power of the president’s office has widened.
The resolution of the war powers of 1973 is a law designed to provide control over the President’s power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of the Congress. It was adopted on the veto of President Richard Nixon following the Vietnam War, which the Congress has never really declared as a war, although it has authorized force in the resolution of the Gulf of Tonkin.
According to the resolution of war powers, “in any case in which the United States armed forces are introduced” when the war was not declared, the president has 48 hours to inform, in writing, the chamber president and the president of the Senate Pro Tempore. The law requires that the notification understands why the president has taken the measures, the authority under which it was taken and “the estimated scope and duration of hostilities or participation”. And the resolution also indicates that each time a president uses the armed forces without informing the congress beforehand, this use must be terminated within 60 days.
Bellinger said any notification to the Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News that the Ministry of Justice is likely to prepare, will probably be based on the authority granted to the President in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the President the Commander -in -Chief. President Joe Biden cited article II in 2021 After having ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria which, according to him, aimed at a “militia group supported by Iranian responsible for recent attacks against American staff in Iraq”.
Presidents’ test limits
Although the congress acted after the United States withdrew from Vietnam to restrict the presidents in its use of military force, the last decades have seen presidents compete against these constraints.
On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO air strikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes started 24 hours later, the room had not yet approved the resolution, and a month later, during an equal vote, he rejected the resolution of the Senate in the midst of the increased concerns of a greater American military involvement in the region.
In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, launched a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered him, he did not ask for the prior approval of the Congress. In June, the Chamber had adopted a resolution calling for a withdrawal of American troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explains why it did not ask for permission from the congress.
In April 2017, during Trump’s first term, he did not ask for the authorization of the congress before ordering a missile strike in Syria in response to the use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons. “It is in this vital national participation of the United States to prevent and dissuade the spread and the use of fatal chemical weapons,” he said in television remarks after strikes.
Bellinger, who helped write military force authorizations under President George W. Bush, said it was not always like that. On January 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of the military force against Iraq in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, after President George HW Bush asked for it. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the September 11 attacks, then target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government.
“To strike a country like Iran, I think it goes far beyond what other presidents have done,” said Bellinger.
Congress, however, may not have appetite to fight Trump on it.
“Since many people in the congress tend to not want to school the president or, obviously, some of them in any case agree with his actions,” said Curtis Bradley, professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Chicago, in an interview, “it seems unlikely that the Congress uses, you know, its statutory powers to try to end or limit the conflict.”
It is also unlikely that the American courts get involved. The judicial branch has a limited authority over a president with regard to his decisions concerning military action and the use of force.
“The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, it’s very complicated,” said Bradley. “They say that it is really to be resolved by political institutions and not by the courts.”
“Even if it is unconstitutional, I do not see that it is likely that the courts will be those of the police,” he added.
The UN
International law, including the Charter of the United Nations, very clearly explains what is and is not justified when a country decides to use force.
Article II of the Charter of the United Nations orders “all members” to settle their international disputes “by peaceful means in such a way that international peace and security and justice are not in danger”.
While a separate section of the Charter of the United Nations makes it possible to take military measures in self -defense, according to experts, this argument will be more difficult for the Trump administration to do in this scenario.
“The idea that you could simply … Attack because, in the long term, you think that your strategic interests will be injured does not correspond to the charter under the reasonable definition of the self -defense of anyone,” said Bradley.
But what does a violation of the United Nations Charter mean? Not much, say the experts.
“It would not be the first time, unfortunately, where the United States did something that probably violates the Charter,” said Bradley. “It ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly prevent a president from acting.”
Bellinger believes that even without any direct national or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump’s decisions are varied. “It will be more a political cost at home, and it will be more a reputation cost for the United States in the world.”
